Too many were in the dark about plans

Published 6:07 pm, Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Greenwich Reform Synagogue's President Birnbaum argues that he has been open about his plans -- citing the Oct. 3 date that notice was sent. Then why did dozens of neighbors who will be impacted by his project not get wind of his plans until a full month later? The answer, of course, is that those of us with non-abutting properties did not receive any notice. He ignored this fact in his letter to the editor (Dec. 4), even though it was the main point of the Greenwich Time editorial (Nov. 30) he was responding to.

He instead writes that he's "gone beyond" notification rules by "reaching out to neighbors with an explanatory letter" which was simply a propaganda sheet that made baseless claims about traffic and other issues. Hardly a public service.

Birnbaum cites the continuance granted by P&Z as further evidence that the rules are just. However, that continuance was granted as a result of families spending thousands of their hard-earned dollars on a highly specialized attorney.

Next came the straw man argument: "GRS has the same right as any other entity in town to own real estate." No one is arguing that. In fact, GRS has greater rights than other entities because of its status as a religious institution. A federal law was created to bring houses of worship closer to congregants. However, Mr. Birnbaum has written that his congregants drive from points all over Greenwich, so there is no urgent need to plunk down a 20,000-square-foot institution in the midst of a densely populated neighborhood that has only one (known) member family. In light of the devastating impact on 11 abutting homes, the morality of this move is very questionable, no matter what its legality.

Mr. Birnbaum is now backing away from the 20,000-square-foot figure, despite having blogged: "the site must permit at least 20,000 sq. ft. to meet our needs today. More is better, and around 25,000 sq. ft. or above seems to be a level that permits the sort of future expansion..."

He then makes an apples and oranges comparison to "other spiritual homes and schools."

Mr. Birnbaum, how can you claim to treat our concerns "with respect" when you didn't even care what they were before you bought property and began this process?

It's amazing how only Republicans can be racist or sexist. Republicans in Congress have said that they most likely will not support Susan Rice for secretary of State. Naturally it's because they are all bigoted because she's black and female. It has nothing to do with her statements after the terror attacks in Libya.

I remember a few years ago when another black female was nominated for that post. Remember? President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice. Such well known Democratic senators as John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin and Tom Harkin voted against her. But naturally they weren't bigots because they were Democrats. Democrats aren't bigots; not even former Sen. Byrd from West Virginia. He was the longest serving member of Congress; he served as majority leader for many years. Before he was a Democratic leader in the Senate he served for many years as an officer in the KKK. But that was forgotten by his cohorts. But don't forget two of the biggest racists of the '60s, George Wallace of Alabama and Lester Maddox of Georgia, both Democrats. So why is it only Republicans get accused of bigotry?